Schools reform in prospect

Download article in original language : FR0411106FFR.DOC

In October 2004, after a major public consultation exercise, a report on reform of France's state schools system was presented to the Minister of National Education. Trade unions gave a mixed response to the proposals, which include a redefinition of the teaching profession and of teachers’ workload. Negotiations over legislative changes now appear likely.

In September 2003, a six-month public consultation exercise was launched on the state schools system, in order to garner the opinions of national education staff, students, parents and interested parties on the workings of the schools system. Just over a year later, on 12 October 2004, the chair of the committee responsible, Claude Thélot, submitted his report entitled 'Success for every pupil' (Pour la réussite de tous les élèves) to the Minister of National Education, François Fillon.

In line with the methodology used by the Pension Stewardship Committee (Conseil d’orientation des retraites, COR) in the recent pensions debate (FR0309103F) and the High Committee on the Future of Sickness Insurance (Haut comité sur l’avenir de l’assurance maladie, HCAAM), in that on sickness insurance (FR0410104F), the official aim of the state school public consultation process was to develop a 'shared diagnosis' as a preliminary to changes to be made to the Framework Law on National Education (Loi d’orientation pour l’Education), passed when Lionel Jospin was Minister of National Education in 1989.

The organisers of the consultation took many steps to ensure the success of the process, including a special website, the mailing of a large number of consultation questionnaires and guides, open and decentralised meetings, and open days designed to enable as many ordinary people to air their views as possible.

National debate

In September 2003, there was largely shared feeling of defeat among trade unions after widespread militancy in the course of a number of major disputes (FR0406103N) during the 2002-3 academic year over issues such as: the allotment of budget resources; the divestment of responsibility for non-teaching staff to local authorities within the framework of a move towards greater decentralisation (FR0410105F); and changes to conditions governing pensions for civil servants (FR0406104F). Starting at the end of the first quarter of the academic year, despite having largely cooperated on initiatives (and in spite of differences over the pension issue), the major education unions decided that they needed to review their action in light of the poor response from the public. These were: the United Union Federation (Fédération syndicale unitaire, FSU); the Education, Research and Culture Federation (Fédération de l'éducation, de la recherche et de la culture, FERC) of the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT); the National Federation of Independent Unions-Education (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes de l’Education, UNSA-Education); and the General National Education Union Federation (Syndicats généraux de l'Education nationale), SGEN) of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT).

The consultation process occurred against this backdrop, aggravated by the strict application of pay deductions for striking employees. It brought to light the strength and diverse nature of social demands made on the education system, the resulting impact on employment and working conditions for staff and the state of the relationship between schools and society.

The evidence gathered both electronically and through minutes of local debates was compiled and printed in 150,000 copies of an initial publication called 'Reflections of a debate' (Le miroir du débat). However, at this preliminary stage, there was no question of making recommendations. The task of synthesising the results of the national consultation and of making recommendations to the government fell to the National Consultation Committee (Commission du débat national), with 50 or so members appointed by the then Minister of National Education, Luc Ferry. Of the proposals put forward in the October 2004 Thélot report, the following are the most controversial : changes to the distribution of teaching cycles between kindergarden and primary; greater autonomy for individual schools; the definition of basic knowledge requirements; refocusing on the core curriculum; earlier streaming for secondary school students; more positive action to promote a greater social mix; and a redefinition of the teaching profession and of teachers’ workload.

Return to internal negotiations at the Ministry

On 21 October 2004, the Minister of National Education, Mr Fillon, told national education staff trade unions taking part in a round-table meeting that work on developing reform legislation should get under way without going through the whole debate again. He added that a comprehensive consultation would be undertaken on the proposed legislation. This process would comprise a new website designed to gather views on the drafting of the new legislation as well as a series of meetings with the education sector and its partners, including staff trade unions. Having unveiled five issues for discussion at this next stage - the aims of compulsory schooling, 'opening schools to the modern world', first steps in learning, secondary school streaming and the education profession - the Minister let it be known that he expected the result of this process to be the gradual development of policy directions, if possible reached by consensus, to be included in the draft legislation. However, on 4 November 2004, the Minister refocused his goals and abandoned the idea of entirely new legislation. The new aim is to amend the existing 1989 legislation by rewriting specific sections of it. Therefore, it now seems probable to observers that the proposed measures will be negotiated in the time-honoured way between the social partners in the education sector and that the national debate involving the whole of society is now over and done with.

The Minister has not ruled out trying to force through some radical initiatives. However, he has not as yet outlined what these might be, preferring instead to allow a negotiation process to develop under the aegis of the Ministry before any legislation is tabled. Of some significance is the fact that the initial website (débat.national.education.fr) has been replaced by a new one, http://loi.ecole.gouv.fr/.

Reactions

The wait-and-see approach seemingly adopted by the majority of national education staff as well as the diverging and often highly critical positions taken up by the trade unions indicates that consensus remains elusive even a year after the debate first started.

In the view of the General Confederation of Labour-Force Ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail-force ouvrière, CGT-FO), the Thélot report is flawed by its 'predictable liberalism' and its 'refusal to strengthen republican values and means of action'. CGT concurs with the goal of success for all students, but fears an unprecedented deterioration in working conditions for all staff. Similarly, the FSU-affiliated National Union of Secondary School Teachers (Syndicat national des enseignements du second degré, SNES-FSU) states that it shares the main concerns raised in the debate but challenges most of the recommendations made in the report, particularly the idea of basic knowledge requirements and the redefinition of teacher mission statements and teaching load. UNSA contends that the government can neither accept nor reject the report as a whole and is opposed to any increase in teacher workloads. CFDT takes a similar though more positive line, approving of the overall philosophy, which in its view can be summed up as 'educate, train, integrate and promote'. However, it is opposed to any increase in the overall workload for staff. Lastly, the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff-General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement-Confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC) supports the Thélot report but is demanding a 'win-win' agreement for all to offset any increase in time spent at work by secondary school teachers.

Commentary

The national consultation was undertaken by the conservative government of Prime Minister at a time when Minister Ferry was in trouble as a result of a determined and protracted industrial dispute. In attempting a kind of direct democracy, including a website, the government’s idea seems to have been to challenge the trade unions to a comprehensive debate with society as a whole as a way of attaining the ultimate goal of credibility for the much hoped for 'shared diagnosis'. This attempt is now behind us. The proposals contained in the Thélot report, if education staff ever come round to seeing them as acceptable, will only be endorsed if accompanied by additional money, although budget constraints are very tight. Taking the debate back inside the Ministry of National Education once again is a way of resolving this contradiction. In this scenario, there would be a return to the traditional industrial relations set-up in the education sector where trade unions, which were somewhat derailed for a time, could fall back on their traditional differences and alliances to prepare for the workplace elections of employee representatives in the teaching sector in December 2005 - six months, possibly, after new legislation has been voted. (Dominique Guibert, IRES)